Do We Need A Right To Roam?
I’m torn, really torn.
Just little me, an average person who loves the outdoors, believes in the benefits of wider access to it, for both myself and wider society. Yet, I see both sides of the arguments for and against.
I’ve seen, first hand, how nature thrives in the absence of humans. Those quiet corners without public rights of way, the bits the general populace haven’t yet discovered, gawped at and claimed for their own.
I’ve seen how nature thrives with gentle and carefully crafted involvement from humans. Re-wilding projects UK wide, seek to improve the natural state of land. Creating not just thriving ecosystems but often also flourishing eco-based industry. These projects are carefully balanced, much like the ecosystems they aim to support. Human activity often needs to be restricted to encourage wildlife to return to previously denuded landscapes.
I also see, through my work, how re-connecting people with nature brings huge physical and mental health benefits. I watch people changing their attitudes to the earth when they’ve been up close and personal with it. Gently nudging them towards a more sustainable way of living. There are myriad academic studies to support this too (1).
And yet, I also see the disrespect that a small section of society has for nature. I’ve seen the litter, the overworked land, eroded riverbanks, campfire scars, the loss of species due to human activity.
I understand the concerns and anxieties of landowners and land managers about allowing greater access of the general public to land and water in the UK.
But has the time passed for the England and Wales model of assumed exclusion to be the answer?
As more and more people discover the benefits of blue and green spaces. As evidence grows of the cost savings to society. With government plans to ensure everyone in England lives within a 15-minute walk of woodlands, wetlands, parks and rivers (2). Surely the only solution can be wider public access. A model with assumed access, where only those areas that are evidentially proven to require human exclusion are exempt.
The Scottish Access model (3) already provides a successful template to work from. We just need a hunger to implement it and then the resources to ensure it works in practice.
No-one would claim this will be a simple, easy task. There will be much to discuss, debate and agree. There will be a need for substantial investment in education, to ensure that all of society understands the rules of engagement. There may be need for enforcement to work with those who don’t follow any new outdoor code of conduct that emerges.
Yet, such investment would be a drop in the ocean when compared to the £2.1 billion estimated annual NHS savings (4) were everyone in England to have access to good quality green and blue space.
Post Covid pandemic people are looking for a more balanced life. More people are taking to the outdoors and, three years down the line in 2024, I don’t see that enthusiasm waning. Everyday, people trespass to swim, walk on land that’s technically “private” yet easily accessible, and excluded with no discernible reason.
With the launch of the Outdoors for All manifesto (5), which draws in organisations from across sports, land management and conservation it’s hoped change for the better can be made
Over the coming weeks I’ll be sharing some of the specific reasons why we need greater access, specifically to water.
Stay tuned.
References
(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8305895/
(2) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ambitious-roadmap-for-a-cleaner-greener-country
(3) https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code/land-reform-act/land-reform-act-legal
(5) https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/news/2023/outdoors-for-all-36-organisations-support-manifesto
